men, who disagreed in the fundamental principle? In what historian, or in what tradition, has Laicus found, that pope Innocent XIII was murdered, or murdered by _Jesuits_? Strange, that the discovery of such a crime should have been reserved for Laicus, ninety-one years after the death of that pontiff[99]! Who, before Laicus, ever wrote, {283} that the assassin of Henry III of France was _instigated_ by Jesuits? Wait another number of the TIMES, Laicus will improve: he will roundly assure us, that the miserable Jacques Clement actually was a Jesuit. No man conversant in the history of France ever doubted of the civil wars of the sixteenth century having originated with the rebellious Hugonots; but no man before Laicus ever attributed all the horrors of that dismal period to Jesuits. The famous league opposed the succession of the Bourbons in the person of {284} Henry IV; and the whole guilt of their proceedings against Henry IV is exclusively ascribed to Jesuits. And yet this very monarch, whom Laicus calls _the greatest and best king of France_, was perhaps, of all men that ever wore a crown, the warmest friend and protector of the Jesuits. Possibly I may be wrong in this assertion; because the glory of Henry IV, in this particular, is certainly rivalled, if not exceeded, by the illustrious favour and protection afforded to the persecuted Jesuists by the late empress Catharine of Russia, and by the present magnanimous emperor Alexander. Henry IV condescended to refute in public the passionate imputations of the president Harlay against the Jesuits. His son, Louis XIII, and his grandson, the famous Louis XIV, imitated his example, in their esteem of the society; and because this was undeniable, behold Laicus, by a bold effort of genius, has transformed the renowned monarch, Louis XIV, into a Jesuit professed of four vows. How a Frenchman must scout such ribaldry! But enough of these extravagancies. {285} In reading them, I began to suspect, that Laicus's aim might be to ridicule the revilers of Jesuits, by imputing to the latter things evidently false, clearly inconsistent, absolutely impossible. Thus, I well remember it, when the absurd tale of the Jesuit king Nicolas of Paraguay amused the Laicuses of the day, the writer of one of the Holland gazettes, in his description of that king's battle against the Spanish and Portuguese troops, endeavoured to turn the fable into ridicule by asserting, that king Nicolas had displayed much bravery, and had fought until three capuchins were shot under him in the action. But I apprehend, that Laicus and his prompters do not rave merely for sport. Their real views will gradually appear: they are not quite unknown to CLERICUS. * * * * * {286} LETTER III. SIR;